Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 669 (MP)

S. K. Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-07-05

M.A.SIDDIQUI

body2012
ORDER 1. This criminal revision under section 397/401 Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed in order to quash the charge for an offence under section 306 of IPC which has been framed on applicant vide order dated 10.01.2012 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No.54/2011. 2. It is an admitted fact that deceased Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, (R.K. Agarwal) who was working as Rural Garden Extension Horticulture Development Officer, was transferred from Katni to Jabalpur and applicant Santosh Kumar Singh ( S.K. Singh) was transferred from Government Garden Jiyawan Deosar, District Singrauli to Government Garden Badwara District Katni on the same post held by the deceased and full charge of the post was not handed over and deceased R.K. Agarwal committed suicide on 16.9.2010 by consuming some poisonous substance. 3. It is also an undisputed fact that co-accused Virendra Kumar Chouksey who was District Project Officer (Horticulture), Katni has been discharged by this Court in Criminal Revision No.171/2012 on 9.2.2012 for the offence under section 306 IPC in S.T.No.54/2011 on the suicide of R.K. Agarwal. 4. Allegation against the applicant is that Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, was working as Rural Garden Extension Horticulture Development Officer, Katni was in hurry to join at Jabalpur was not accommodated by applicant and full charge of office was not taken so due to harassment deceased on 16.9.2010 committed suicide leaving behind him a suicidal note which is as follows: “MAIN RAKESH AGRAWAL MAHSUS KAR RAHA HUN KI MERE PRAN KA KHATRA HAI. MERE KISI BHI PRAKAR SE HUI MOUT KE PURNTAH JIMMEDAR CHAHE WAH [HATYA HO, ACCIDENT HO YA ATM-HATYA LAGE] S.K.SINGH UDYAN ADHIKSHAK, BADWARA HONGE. ISKE SAHYOGI KARYALAY KE KUCHCH LOG BHI..” It is said due to vomiting some part of suicidal note was wiped off. 5. First Information Report (F.I.R.) was lodged and body of deceased was sent for post mortem. Marg intimation was recorded and on 29.9.2010 named FIR was registered for an offence under section 306 of IPC by Police Station Badwara District Katni vide Crime No.194/10 against applicant. 6. I have heard both the sides and perused copy of charge-sheet presented by learned counsel for the applicant and documents on record. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no prima facie case under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant as there is no instigation. 6. I have heard both the sides and perused copy of charge-sheet presented by learned counsel for the applicant and documents on record. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no prima facie case under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant as there is no instigation. He placed reliance on S.S.Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another (2010) 12 SCC 190 where in it has been held that where appellant’s name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. Order of framing of charge under S.306 IPC on basis of allegation of deceased. Allegations not substantiated. Suicide note did not even connect appellant with offence of abetment. Abetment of suicide. Ingredients of offence reiterated. Deceased was hypersensitive. Human sensitivity of each individual differs. In that situation under section 306 IPC has no basis. 8. Learned Government Advocate appearing for State has submitted that name of applicant is very much there in FIR and offence under section 306 of IPC is prima facie made out from the suicidal note and suicidal note is fully creditable in which it has been very much mentioned in clear cut case against the applicant he is responsible for the death of deceased. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant further places reliance on Vedprakash Bhaiji v. State of M.P. 1994 JLJ 758 where in it has been held that demand of loan advanced is not abetment to commit suicide. Loan advance does not come under the ambit of abetment and for word “instigate” means to goad or urge forward to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. Abetment requires positive step to be taken by a person to induce the commission of the abetted offence. He also placed reliance on Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sebngar v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002(2) JLJ 275 = 2002 AIR SCW 2035 in which it has been held that where accused telling deceased ‘to go and die’ that itself would not constitute ingredient of ‘instigation’ and suicidal note was left over and for perusal of suicidal note, statement of wife under section 161 Cr.PC the version of wife that deceased used to say that deceased was without work he was heavy drinking so suicide has been committed. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was recovery of more than thirteen lakhs Rs. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was recovery of more than thirteen lakhs Rs. from the deceased that is why the deceased was not handing over the charge so he would have committed suicide due to allegation of huge embezzlement and it has also been urged that applicant came on transfer on his own cost it means that he was eager to take charge and do service at Katni that is why he came to Katni on his own expenses. 11. Learned Government Advocate appearing for State has submitted that those authorities referred by learned counsel for the applicant have no application to the present case. Each case has to decide on its own facts and circumstances and in this case there is suicidal note in which name of applicant is very much mentioned clear cut though some part of it wiped off due to vomiting more over there are statements of Smt. Shobha Agrawal and Smt. Shiela Agrawal widow and sister of deceased respectively, who clearly stated that deceased was harassed by the applicant and deceased was complaining and he was telling name of applicant who was harassing him. 12. It is a settled cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that even in case of strong situation charges should have been framed irrespective of the result whether it resulted into conviction or not. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Virendra Kumar Chouksey was immediate boss who was incharge of relieving the deceased who has been discharged by this Court in Criminal revision no.171/2012 on 9.2.2012 from the charge under section 306 of IPC and on the ground of parity this applicant be also granted the same benefit. 14. Learned Government Advocate submitted that since name of co-accused Virendra Kumar Chouksey was not in suicidal note and name of the applicant is very much there in suicidal note of deceased R.K.Agrawal and suicidal note has been recovered by the police from the body of deceased hence it cannot be said that prima facie no case under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant as he has actively suggested and stimulated the deceased to act and he committed suicide on the instigation of applicant. 15. 15. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction cannot embark upon reappreciation of evidence unless the finding of fact is on the face of it, illegal or perverse. 16. It is also a cardinal principle of law that in a revision the revisional Court will not interfere with the order of the Court below unless there is some compelling reason for doing so such as where the judgment or order of the Court below is vitiated by perversity or gross illegality. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality nor there is any error of jurisdiction. 17. In the result, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or perversity or not committed any error in framing the charge under section 306 IPC against the applicant as there is prima facie case against him. This petition is devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No interference is called for.